Comcast Paying Minority Rights Groups To Parrot Merger Support
from the repeat-after-me-if-you'd-like-to-keep-your-funding dept
I've already talked a little bit about the media sound wall Comcast will construct to try and convince the press, public and regulators that their planned $42 billion merger with Time Warner Cable is a wonderful idea for everyone involved. Like any company with a healthy lobbyist budget, Comcast pays think tanks, consultants, PR reps, editorial writers, various front groups and a myriad of other policy tendrils to all repeat the same mantra: whatever it is we want will be great and you have nothing to worry about. As we saw with AT&T's attempted takeover of T-Mobile, anybody and everybody who wants their Comcast money to keep flowing will come out in support of the deal, whether it's rural Texas school associations, the U.S. Cattlemen's Associations or even "balloonists."One specifically important cornerstone of these lobbying efforts involves paying minority advocacy groups to parrot your positions, given lobbyists appear to believe that these groups in particular provide an important additional layer of artificial, grass roots legitimacy to your entirely-artificial support base. AT&T's T-Mobile deal, for example, received ample praise from groups like the The Hispanic Institute, the Latino Coalition, and the Minority Media and Telecommunications Council, all of which took funding from AT&T while insisting that less competition would bring great things to American consumers.
Comcast's lobbying approach for the Time Warner Cable merger isn't all that different. The New York Times notes that the company is paying groups like The United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce to sing the praises of Comcast's latest effort to get more powerful:
"...what the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce did not mention in its statement praising the transaction was that it had collected at least $320,000 over the last five years from Comcast's charitable foundation, which is run in part by David L. Cohen, the Comcast executive who oversees the corporation's government affairs operations...And (top Comcast lobbyist David) Cohen adamantly rejected any suggestion that the corporation's history of supporting nonprofit groups and charities, particularly groups that serve African-Americans, Latinos and Asians, was motivated by a desire to build political allies."The usual defense from companies is that this is just us being altruistic, even though the company involved usually sends these organizations an e-mail with a list of talking points they'd like to see parroted. Losing funding if you don't play along is usually strongly implied:
"But even one of Comcast's own lobbyists said in an interview that the relationship with some groups had a transactional flavor. "If you have a company like Comcast that has been with them for a long time and continues to support them, they will go to bat for them," the contract lobbyist for Comcast said, asking that he not be named because he was not authorized to discuss the matter publicly, "even if it means they have become pawns."The sad part is that these organizations obviously wind up rooting against their constituents' own best self-interests in the quest for continued funding. An AT&T acquisition of T-Mobile, for example, would have killed off T-Mobile and driven prices up, neither of which would have helped minorities (or anybody else). While the Comcast deal is different because Time Warner Cable and Comcast don't compete, the deal could still result in greater vertical integration, a tougher time for small and minority-owned media businesses, and the imposition of data caps and broadband overages across a broader overall market area (aka: higher prices).
Combine this sound wall of artificial support with the oodles of money Comcast is throwing at Congress, The President, and the FCC, and it starts to get easier and easier to buy approval for bad ideas. That's before you even point out that former FCC boss Michael Powell now runs the NCTA, the cable industry's biggest lobbying organization, Former FCC Commissioner Meredith Attwell Baker now lobbies for Comcast, or DOJ Antitrust Division director William J. Baer represented NBCUniversal during Comcast's acquisition. Did I mention Comcast's David Cohen is a big Obama fundraiser?
While this greasy wheeling might make the deal get approved, it doesn't change the truth that your argument or idea isn't very good if you have to pay people to support it.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: advocacy, cable, lobbying, merger, television
Companies: comcast, time warner cable
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
If there are any politicians or policy makers reading this site, let this be a lesson on who gets screwed in these deals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's common....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's common....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's common....
They don't care about my freedoms and they don't care about yours. They only care about the freedom of big billionaires to take whatever they want without sharing with the people who do the work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It's common....
You have no right to protect 'your' work. You are not entitled to have the government grant you copy protection privileges and to enforce them. You are not entitled to anything the government gives you and a monopoly privilege is something the government gives you. There is absolutely nothing morally wrong with freely copying what I want as I please and doing what i want with it. If these laws are to exist they should only exist to promote the progress and serve the public interest. But you don't care about public domain theft which is what you should be screaming about. Your comment perverts the intended purpose of IP and changes it into something completely different and it is arguably the biggest reason I want IP laws abolished. ABOLISH IP LAWS!!! You have no right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: It's common....
I'll go with the rights granted by the constitution. You go back to your church of anarchy run by Kim Dotcom and Pirate Bay. And while you're at it, why don't you move to Somalia and enjoy the law-free life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's common....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's common....
But you don't care anything about the constitution and pretending that you just makes you look more dishonest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's common....
Then why is there an entire Wikipedia article discussing their legal structure.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_of_Somalia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somalia#Law
S eriously, you need to go back in time twenty years ago on cable T.V. and make anything up where you can get away with it because there is no one that can call you out on it. Because over here you just make yourself look foolish.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's common....
Also, when the best argument you can come up with is a strawmen then everyone knows that your argument is complete bunk. No one is arguing against having laws. I am merely arguing against having certain laws. Arguing that IP laws are bad isn't the same as arguing that all laws are bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's common....
And just so you know, the constitution ENUMERATES rights, it doesn't GRANT them. So how have these "constitutional rights" been working out for us lately?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It's common....
Someone else will simply do what you've done, better. And unlike you, they won't be an egotistical self-important prat whose primary concern is getting paid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: It's common....
And I'm just talking about journalism. Perhaps you like mid-range movies where the plot is driven by character not special effects. Surprise! Hollywood doesn't make them for you anymore because pirate scum have eroded that market. HBO is the last redoubt of quality content and that's because they're able to charge a decent price for high-quality content.
And I'll believe your last jibe about getting paid when I hear that you're volunteering at your job and living on scraps from the dumpster. Artists deserve to be paid and not ripped off by internet anarchists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's common....
The current state of copy'right' is the corruption that we face. Retroactive extensions/public domain theft is corruption. Government established broadcasting and cableco monopolies is a product of corruption. It's the corruption that the traditional media you want to support with these laws tries to avoid reporting on (or when they do report on it they deliver one sided propaganda). That is corruption.
If you want to fund your version of 'journalism' or if you want to fund movies that you like then fund it alone. Out of your own pocket. But don't force others to subsidize what you want by sacrificing their rights and freedoms.
A: I don't believe your doomsday scenario will occur in the absence of IP laws. Your scare mongering is not convincing anyone.
B: Even if the result of IP abolition is your alleged doomsday scenario I can live with it. My natural right to copy is more important to me and this is a risk I'm more than willing to take.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's common....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's common....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It's common....
You are free to make content or not make content, I don't care. You are not free to force your desired (IP) laws on others and to use them to restrict my freedoms. (IP) Laws restrict freedom, their absence isn't what enables them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: It's common....
The reality is that you have no right to take our work. You can go try to live on public domain works. There are a bunch of people who give their work away for free. If you're such an anti-IP zealot, I dare you to live an honest life and consume only public domain work. See how long you go watch cat videos on YouTube.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's common....
You also seem to assume that the public are taking the work from the artist. This is not a correct assumption to make, as I pay the artists personally, and not the middlemen who genuinely steal from the artists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's common....
Your argument is that IP law is good law because it exists and since other laws are good laws and they exist this means that all existing laws are good laws including IP laws. This is a non-sequitur.
No, if you want IP laws to exist the burden is on you to prove their social value and to justify their existence. It's not on me to show that they shouldn't exist. You have failed to meet that burden and your poor logic suggests that you can't meet such a burden. The current existence of a law does not itself justify it.
Again, arguing against some laws doesn't mean arguing against all laws. and comparing copying with murder is silly. Murder is morally wrong. There is absolutely nothing morally wrong with copying. Don't force your arbitrary morals on me. Even if it's against the law to drink water that doesn't make it morally wrong neither does the existence of a law make the law a good law. Just because IP law exists doesn't mean it's good law.
Your argument is that IP law is good law because it exists and since other laws are good laws and they exist this means that all existing laws are good laws including IP laws. This is a non-sequitur.
" We voted as a society to create IP laws to protect the artists because we cherish their works."
Again, you don't care about the constitution so stop pretending that you do. Laws exist only to serve the public interest. To promote the progress. If we are better off without these laws then we should abolish them.
If you cherish the works of artists then you are free to fund them alone. Don't impose laws on others.
This sentence shows a complete lack of historical knowledge regarding how these laws were created and who was behind them (ie: distributors, not the public and not content creators) and who lobbies for them (ie: Disney, the MPAA, the RIAA) and how they are passed, negotiated, and extended (in secret, like with SOPA, by politicians who pass them in exchange for campaign contributions and revolving door favors). These laws are not a product of democracy but you don't care anything about democracy.
I did not vote for these laws and I, as a member of society, want these laws abolished. I am expressing my viewpoints here. That's not to say only my views count but the whole point of me and others expressing our views and arguments is so that we can have a say in the legislative process. If enough people disagree with these laws then they should be abolished. I, for one, disagree with them and would like a democratic government to also consider my views. That's why I express them to others.
" I dare you to live an honest life and consume only public domain work."
Copy'right' laws have already hindered the ability of others to distribute and profit from permissibly licensed works. They have taken down Megaupload, for instance, which provided content creators different opportunities to make money. I am not willing to sacrifice the use of copy'right' works in the current legal landscape (and I don't see anything morally wrong with freely copying so if I want to freely copy try and stop me), I am willing to sacrifice their existence in the absence of these laws (that is, in exchange for what I get in return, my right to freely copy what I please as I please without worrying about infringement).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's common....
"That's before you even point out that former FCC boss Michael Powell now runs the NCTA, the cable industry's biggest lobbying organization, Former FCC Commissioner Meredith Attwell Baker now lobbies for Comcast, or DOJ Antitrust Division director William J. Baer represented NBCUniversal during Comcast's acquisition. Did I mention Comcast's David Cohen is a big Obama fundraiser? "
Some democracy, where politicians pass laws based on what they personally get in return and not based on their duty to serve the public interest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's common....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's common....
Also, Ip laws aren't about 'protecting the artists'. Artists are not entitled to any protection and misconstruing their purpose to something else is arguably the biggest reason I want them abolished. IP laws should only be about serving a public interest and promoting the progress and expanding the public domain (which doesn't happen anymore thanks to public domain theft).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's common....
Ha, "our" work. What have you ever made? Please, link to it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It's common....
Sure. You go on believing that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's common....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's common....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It's common....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's common....
First, you're trying to paint net neutrality as a bad thing, when really the only groups who don't like it are the giant companies who really like the idea of double dipping and charging twice for the same thing.
The idea that net neutrality is somehow anti-creator is a joke, since being charged the same whether you're a big, established company or a new startup is what enables smaller startups and companies to grow. If they have to face a massive tax in the form of 'sponsored data' plans or the like, just to be on an equal footing with established groups/companies, a great many of them will simply never get off the ground, so if anything net neutrality is very much pro-creator.
Second, trying to paint supporting groups that already support stuff like net neutrality as some sort of nefarious action, as though they wouldn't possibly be supporting equal treatment on the internet without a company like Google giving them funding, that's just a desperate attempt to shoehorn Google into the discussion, and try and make groups that fight for the rights of the people seem just as bad as the groups they're fighting against.
While normally I'd consider this a cheap shot, your comment, and in particular your attacking pro-net neutrality groups in an article about Comcast paying off people to support them, I'd say makes it fair game so I'll just toss it out.
So then bob, how much is Comcast paying you for your 'opinion' here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's common....
This sort of stuff is at the very heart of what's killing this nation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's common....
How to avoid corporations from discriminatory hiring practices based on what causes you support may be a problem without anti-discriminatory law enforcement, but that risk already exists and hopefully enough employees would be empowered to support causes that enforce nondiscrimination.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It's common....
I'm against this idea, too, although that's far less objectionable than direct donations. What is the reason for allow matching donations?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's common....
Not much it seems. First off, EFF and Google have different positions on net neutrality, so if they're paying, they're not getting their money's worth.
Second, it's simply untrue that Google is dumping tons of money into EFF. As EFF has disclosed, it received $10,000 from Google directly, and about $200,000 in "employee matches" meaning that Google will match what its employees choose to donate to.
That was in 2010, when EFF's income was about 3.6 million. So, even if we include all of Google's matching (which again, is not by the choice of Google), we're talking... about 5%.
Meanwhile, EFF has come down hard against Google on multiple other issues, mostly focused on privacy.
Third, some people point to the $1 million that Google did eventually give EFF, but that wasn't by choice, but was the result of a *lawsuit* concerning a Google privacy violation, in which the judge ordered Google to give money to a bunch of privacy groups *WHO OPPOSED* Google's practices, including EFF.
Fourth, Google has basically gone totally silent on net neutrality over the past four years anyway. They -- much to the annoyance of many of us -- have backed away from their strong support for neutrality as the company has become more powerful and also started running a network of its own. Many of us are uncomfortable with this.
Fifth, this is totally different than what was being discussed in the article in the first place. This is about Comcast paying groups whose issues are totally unrelated to Comcast's to speak out in support. EFF was formed around internet legal and policy issues -- and, as far as I can tell, has never changed its position on net neutrality.
So, yeah, as per usual, you don't know wtf you're talking about. Stop arguing against demons that don't exist. They just make you look ignorant and nutty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57619353-93/netflix-reaches-streaming-traffic-agreement-with -comcast/
IOW, Comcast has managed to find a way to charge consumers more for Netflix (since Netflix will pass its costs back to consumers) than for other services. The ISP charges twice for traffic, they charge the consumer and the content providers for the same traffic. It's equivalent to the post office charging both the sender and the receiver to deliver a letter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Is gov't capable anymore of getting off its asterisk and forcing the breakup of a premier corporation? On behalf of consumers or citizens??? (No need to answer that). If shareholders stood to lose some serious money, we'd see a bailout, maybe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
http://videosift.com/video/Colbert-regarding-the-new-ATT
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Internet Essentials
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Internet Essentials
Comcast is scum.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Internet Essentials
-- Adam Smith
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Internet Essentials
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bought and paid for
Hopefully when the country starts losing billions to others due to a lack of infrastructure improvements , maybe then the gov will ignore the legal bribes and do what is in the best interest of the country and not one tiny small part of the country, actually not one massive bank account offshore.
Does America not realsie how they have become the exact opposite to what they try to portray themselves and have become the laughing stock of the world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Force their hand
These magical consumer savings, you see, never ever materialize. Sure, they materialize for Comcast. Comcast sees savings as they trim their redundant workforce: SAVINGS! Less people working. Consolidate: SAVINGS! Less overhead. More leverage against content creators: SAVINGS! (but only for Comcast) Now if only Comcast could have less regulation and restrictions and more laws to lock out potential competition. Now we're talking! Cha ching!
What can we do to combat this? Wean ourselves off the crack the cable companies sell to us. Say no to $100+ bills. When people cut the cord, they will listen. Try to get local authorities to regulate the prices again. Their hand must be forced. There is no other way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cable Mafia
Say No To Comcast / Time Warner Cable Mafia Merger
http://bit.ly/1gB0ULh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]